October Term 2022
View this list sorted by case name.
October Sitting
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether MoneyGram Official Checks are “a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503; (2) whether the court should command Wisconsin and Pennsylvania not to assert any claim over abandoned and unclaimed property related to MoneyGram Official Checks; and (3) whether all future sums payable on abandoned MoneyGram Official Checks should be remitted to Delaware.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the state of Alabama’s 2021
redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States
House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling from Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs applies to the one-year statutory
deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking
retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, whether the
government has rebutted that presumption; and (2) whether, if 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to
equitable tolling, this case should be remanded
so the agency can consider the particular facts
and circumstances in the first instance.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the statute of
limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of
crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any
appeals (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held), or whether
it begins to run at the moment the state trial court
denies DNA testing, despite any subsequent appeal
(as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, held
below).
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic
economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide
industry state a violation of the dormant commerce
clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle
described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that
is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state
housing of farm animals, state a claim under Pike v. Bruce
Church, Inc.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each
year is entitled to overtime pay because the
standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 remains subject to the detailed
requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 when
determining whether highly compensated supervisors
are exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act’s overtime-pay
requirements.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a work of art is “transformative” when it
conveys a different meaning or message from its
source material (as the Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and
other courts of appeals have held), or whether a court
is forbidden from considering the meaning of the
accused work where it “recognizably deriv[es] from”
its source material (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held).
|
November Sitting
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of
higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the
student body, without proving that the alternative
would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality
or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.
|
|
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,
No. 20-1199
[Arg: 10.31.2022]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of
higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing
race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (g) precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether federal inmates
who did not — because established circuit precedent
stood firmly against them — challenge their convictions
on the ground that the statute of conviction did not
criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief
under 28
U.S.C § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a
retroactively applicable decision that the circuit
precedent was wrong and that they are legally
innocent of the crime of conviction.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to
file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each
individual account that was not properly reported.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to
hear a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, based on an alleged constitutional defect in the statutory provisions
that govern the removal of the administrative law judge
who will conduct the proceeding.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Congress impliedly stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedures, and existence by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to “affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside” the commission’s cease-and-desist orders.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether, in light of compelling historical
evidence to the contrary, the Supreme Court should reexamine
its holding that spending clause legislation gives rise
to privately enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether, assuming spending clause statutes
ever give rise to private rights enforceable via Section
1983, the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act of 1987’s transfer and medication rules do so.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978 — namely,
the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f);
the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a)
and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections
1915(e) and 1951(a) — violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III
standing to challenge ICWA’s placement preferences
for “other Indian families” and for
“Indian foster home[s]”; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and
therefore consistent with equal protection.
|
December Sitting
|
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s “right to control”
theory of fraud — which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s
economic decision as a species of property fraud —
states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire
fraud statute.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or
government employment, but has informal political or
other influence over governmental decisionmaking,
owes a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he
can be convicted of honest-services fraud.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; (2) whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to “hold unlawful and set aside” the guidelines under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the Quiet Title Act’s statute of
limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) limits
the appellate courts’ jurisdiction over any sale order or
order deemed “integral” to a sale order, such that it is
not subject to waiver, and even when a remedy could
be fashioned that does not affect the validity of the sale.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether applying a public-accommodation law
to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates
the free speech clause of the First
Amendment.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether an individual may be subject to liability for the
fraud of another that is barred from discharge in
bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), by imputation, without any act, omission, intent or knowledge of her own.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the government has authority to dismiss a
False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that
authority.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the
regulations governing the “Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives ...
prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of
the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state
constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state
judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it
deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.
|
January Sitting
|
Issue(s): Whether a communication involving both legal and
non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one
of the significant purposes behind the communication.
|
|
The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority,
No. 21-1454
[Arg: 1.9.2023]
Issue(s): Whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property in the course of a labor dispute.
|
|
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo,
No. 22-96
[Arg: 1.11.2023]
Issue(s): Whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18
U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether, and in what circumstances, courts should excuse further exhaustion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s administrative proceedings under Section 1415(l) when such proceedings would be futile; and (2) whether Section 1415(l) requires exhaustion of a non-IDEA claim seeking money damages that are not available under the IDEA.
|
Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument
|
Issue(s): Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art “to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments” without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial “time and effort.”
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for infringement of U.S. trademarks, extraterritorially to Abitron Austria GmbH's foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency
Act immunizes interactive
computer services when they make targeted
recommendations of information provided by
another information content provider, or only
limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to
display or withdraw) with regard to such information.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, allowing the
Navajo Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a plan to meet the Navajo Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin so as not to interfere with that plan, infringes upon the Supreme Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of
water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California; and (2) whether the Navajo Nation can state a cognizable claim for
breach of trust consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation based solely on unquantified implied rights to
water under the doctrine of Winters
v. United States.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether a defendant that provides generic,
widely available services to all its numerous users and
“regularly” works to detect and prevent terrorists from
using those services “knowingly” provided substantial
assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use; and (2) whether a defendant whose generic, widely
available services were not used in connection with the
specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the
plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under
Section 2333.
|
|
Dubin v. U.S.,
No. 22-10
Issue(s): Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C).
|
|
Biden v. Nebraska,
No. 22-506
Issue(s): (1) Whether the respondents have Article III standing; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the Secretary's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.
|
